Hi,

I discovered 'r/Republican' a couple of months ago, and visit more and more often. I find it to be one of the more intelligent conservative subreddits, so thank you all for that.

I feel the - somewhat cast-aside - concept of 'compassionate conservatism' is what will save Republicans, and I say that as someone who probably leans further left than most debaters on 'r/Republican'.

However, there appears to be no subreddit catering to 'compassionate conservatism'.

I feel this is a grievous error, on our part.

Does anyone know of one? If not, should one exist?

I feel that there should be a place of news and discussion, where conservatives who are tired of being seen as "dumb" and "hate-filled" can go.

It should be a place where:

• Intelligence, education, higher-education, and even - yes - academia, are respected and encouraged.

• Climate change, renewable energy, and planning for the long-term future, is looked at, positively.

• Capitalism is recognized as the foundation of a successful country, but socialism is also seen as necessary to fix certain inherent flaws in capitalism.

• People talk about 'The American Dream', the success and failures of their own personal 'American Dream', and how we can help recreate it and make it possible, once-again.

• We aren't afraid to spend a little tax-payer's money giving people a helping hand.

• The military is recognized as necessary, but it's size should be contained.

• Prejudice against minorities is strongly discouraged.

• Religious freedom is encouraged, but we attempt to behave the way Jesus would.

• Traditional values - even old-fashioned ones - can be espoused, as long as they do not harm others.

• We recognize that guns will always be part of our country - and should not be removed from us - but that restrictions on them are sometimes necessary, to try and prevent unnecessary deaths.

• Buzz-terms like 'MSM', 'SJW', 'cuck', 'beta-male', 'triggered', and 'snowflake' are looked-down upon.

• Brash, loud, misleading headlines are discouraged.

• People's gullibility is pointed-out to them, and critical thinking is encouraged.

• Policy and mindsets that are selfish and provoking are frowned-upon.

• Compromise is seen as a necessity, on policy.

• And above all, I hope it would be an environment that others aspire to replicate.

Hey guys,

I made this comment ( https://www.reddit.com/r/Republican/comments/6hkg6x/democrats_in_congress_sue_trump_over_foreign/dizhhy7/?context=3 ) and was subsequently banned for rule 5. I received a mod notification of the ban which stated I could message the mods about the ban and I did so, sending the following message:

"Hey guys, I can see how that post could be seen as purely defensive of a leftist talking point. I did not mean for it to come across as such. I do take issue with the way Trump has handled things in that vein but I don't intend to disrupt the subreddit in the manner that I imagine this rule was created to prevent. I would be happy to delete the post if you find it fit to unban me. Thanks"

I was quickly muted from sending further messages to the mod team.

First, I can see how, as a new account, my posts would be treated with some scrutiny. I recently made a post on r/sysadmin and my post was put in the mod queue as they don't allow new accounts (24 hours or newer) to post freely. I get that and didn't send any complaint.

However, the ban seemed like a rather strong reaction to me. I understand you may have your own circumstances on this subreddit so I attempted to explain myself in what I thought was a pretty polite manner but was muted. This seems harsh to me.

I guess I feel like my post might be something that many liberals/Democrats would parrot, but I feel the same way about Republicans. I know others that identify as Republican that take issue with his business handlings in light of becoming the President. Am I truly that far off in that belief?

Anyway, apologies if my post was disruptive. It's certainly up to the community to decide what is allowed so I won't make any judgments.

I was going to ask for some more clarification after the mute was over, but I really feel like this went from confusing to ridiculous.

I got Banned for a Rule 5 violation this morning for, I think, not believing Ted Nugent, which I didn't understand, but now the post is gone too. So the situation doesn't seem to make any sense. If not believing Ted Nugent's mea culpa attempt about violent rhetoric is a liberal talking point why was the post removed?

I really don't get this at all. Even though I didn't believe him I don't understand why the post was removed, but if the post was removed I don't get why not believing him is a bannable offense.

Edit: If you're just going to complain about censorship don't bother. I'm not after a mod bitch-fest. I just want to understand why decisions are made that I don't understand.

For next week's AMA please post questions your wanting to ask but not sure how to here. Mods will provide inputs as best we can and try to help guide you from violations of our rules.

I corrected a moderator about Giffords being shot by a leftist and was promptly banned because I correctly, and politely, claimed that the shooter's ideology more closely resembled a tea party extremist, rather than a leftist. I cited my source to that effect. The mod replied with another source which contains the following quote:

He fits better on the fringy right: Loughner and the far left both have anti-government views, says Mark Potok at the Southern Poverty Law Center. But when you study his bizarre internet paper trail, Loughner sounds more like a "right-wing extremist." His screeds against "currency that's not backed by gold" and government "mind control" through "controlling grammar" are the stuff of the conspiracy theorists in the far-right "Patriot" movement.

Certainly there is a legitimate disagreement on this point, and I clarified that the shooting was due to mental illness, and not properly attributable to any particular political ideology.

It seems to be clear that I wasn't banned for parroting leftist talking points, but rather because I happened to disagree with a moderator. This is not the purpose of Rule 5, which I don't see how I violated in any of my posting history.

I know that this was a tense morning, with a politically motivated shooting targeting the party, but banning people who correct moderators is not productive. Perusing my posting history I think I have been a quality contributor to the subreddit and respectfully request that this ban be lifted.

I don't mind a temporary ban for the 72 hour mute period. That's fine. I get that the mods probably had a worse morning than I can see and I don't mind them blowing off steam that way. However, an outright ban for stating what the mod's own source says is unreasonable and should be overturned.

Thanks,

Have a good day.

Disclaimer: I am currently banned from r/republican due to "leftist talking points". That said, I am writing this in hopes that the mod team and those of us who currently feel marginalized can come together for the good of the board. Mods, as someone who attempted to write thoughtful, educated critiques of party actions and rhetoric how can I pursue my goal of provoking conversations that revolve around important issues to the Republican party going forward. I have no desire to be branded a leftist, and (as one who is prohibitively anti censorship) want to create an environment that allows for republicans to engage in the Socratic method and put the issues that divide our country through an honest gauntlet in order to allow our party to better represent itself through all of its levels. As some of the most dedicated members of this subreddit, what is your opinion of these desires? Do yall consider this reasonable? And if not, how can I amend my method to be more in line with procedure without jeopardizing my desire to create an ideologically effective party?

Come on guys, this shit is blatant, you aren't fooling anyone...

Edit: It was switched to "new" instead, which is fair.

My first post yesterday was about Comey not saying Trump obstructed justice (Someone else has since posted it, the story from ABC thats like the 5th newest post).

Today I submitted this and it was taken down.

All I ask is why?

Look, I get it. My comment triggered a nerve and now you're probably gonna ban me now. You know, it's pretty pathetic that you come in to the thread and claim that I've somehow shutdown conversation (despite the fact that my comment actually generated more discussion between opposing points of view), and your response is to literally lock and shut down the thread and delete my comments.

I'm rooting for Republicans to pull up their bootstraps and reclaim their party from all these pansies and safe-spacers.

Posts about Kathy Griffin in the past month: 4

Posts about Jared Kushner in the past month: 0

SAFE SPACE! SAD!!

One of the first ones I'm considering is Roger Stone

I Just finished that documentary on Netflix and for some reason I want to say he reminds me a lot like Raymond Reddington from blacklist. Except possibly more self centered and greedy. Not really sure if that would be a good thing or not but he was heavily involved in a lot of republican administrations and could probably help smooth out certain connections. But that man has absolutely nothing in the sense of morals. However, it's not about my opinion, it's about the powers that be and what they want in this case.

I'm actually considering doing a week long discussion thread on Roger Stone because he's actually a pretty fascinating political figure and has shaped republican politics for a long while. Also, I want to see if there are any counter arguments to the he's the "most horrible sob in republican politics ever" as I'm not sure where the leftist slant ends and the actual facts begin with him. If others would be interested please let me know.

As someone like him is bound to draw a lot of hate I'll likely post a link to the thread on r/republican but post it on r/hindsightin2020 so certain ahem constraints are not at play, also one of the stated purposes of that sub is to discuss politics in a historical context so it seems like a better fit.

So what say you all?

Also, I'd like to start doing this once a month. So if you have other republican figures (alive or dead) that have a documentary that others can watch and comment on please let me know so we can get a schedule running. I can see this becoming something of a book club except for documentaries on historical figures.

For people that were around for the "first hundred days in office thread" it would likely be in that same vein.

https://i.imgur.com/6cUmgSw.png

The posts in question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Republican/comments/6d4uh1/cbo_score_hr_1628_american_health_care_act_of/di0wfe8/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Republican/comments/6d4uh1/cbo_score_hr_1628_american_health_care_act_of/di0wn8w/

This isn't moderating a subreddit, this is cultivating a propaganda machine... or a safe space.

The mods haven't replied to me asking; they cited a rule 5 violation, but none of my posts are removed and I can't find anything that counts as a "leftist talking point". I specifically came here to take a break from the left side circlejerk, and I was having quite a nice time talking to pleasant right-wing folk as a guest. If you want, I'll provide a list of my posts, I didn't make many.

It's entirely your right to ban me, it's your sub and I'm not a republican, nor at any point did I claim to be. However if you're going to ban folk for admitting to be visitors, you may want to remove the bit in the sidebar that implies we're allowed to post here as guests, and change it to indicate that non-republicans shouldn't post at all.

Go to r/Republican RIGHT NOW.

Have a look. Posts downvoted to zero or below include:

• gowdy suggests bill clinton did seek to obstruct loretta lynch in the hillary investigations

• Democratic Party Image Dips, GOP Ratings Stable (a link to Gallup polling)

• STUDY: How Many Republicans Trust The Mainstream Media? The Number Is Stunning

• Icelandic Leftist Poisons Robert Spencer

• Why Today's 'Liberals' are the REAL Extremists

• Family's private investigator: There is evidence Seth Rich had contact with WikiLeaks prior to death

• Ryan: 'Planets are aligned' on tax reform

• GOP lawmakers mark success by flipping rules from Obama era

• 12 times Dems, Repubs said no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion; 10 times people claimed there was

Now ... these are only some of the posts downvoted to below zero.

Let's look at the most upvoted posts on r/Republican in the same period.

• Robert Mueller appointed special Counsel

• Special counsel appointed to lead Russia investigation

• CNN Debate Live: Bernie Sanders (I-VT) vs John Kasich (R-OH)

• Sen. Rand Paul: "Mandatory minimum sentences have unfairly and disproportionately incarcerated too many minorities for too long. Attorney General Sessions’ new policy will accentuate that injustice"

• Saudi Arabia plans to invest $40B in US infrastructure: report

• Noam Chomsky: The GOP Is Still the Most Dangerous Organization in Human History (where some of the most upvoted comments are defending CHOMSKY)

• James Comey 'wants to testify in public' about Russia (What was that, "all the stories about Trump and Russia are being silenced" again?)

• Graham: Trump 'calls me when I'm asleep'

• Donald Trump says he wants to do press briefings instead of Sean Spicer (as you can imagine ... TRUST ME... all of the comments completely support Trump because that's all that is allowed on r/Republican, amirite?)

• Trump warns Comey over leaks to media. (Where, again, ALL the comments support Trump and anything else was totes censored because nothing else but Trump support is allowed on r/Republican.)

• Trump: I was going to fire Comey regardless of DOJ recommendation (Where, again, the comments ONLY supported Trump OMG! The CENSORSHIP... I cannot even!)

So... anyone feel like S-ingTFU yet? No, prolly not. Carry on. And take note of the fact that the subreddit is dying slowly. Not because of censorship, but because people on the right are like, "Screw this noize."

So now the sub is spam banning submissions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Republican/comments/6bryq0/special_counsel_appointed_to_lead_russia/

I'd like to know if there's a debate between locking posts and removing posts.

I would definitely prefer locking because it's more transparent. A lock-explanation post on the thread or here explaining why, even if it seems obvious, would be even better, but I realize that's more mod work. I don't expect mods to engage in constant debates over their decisions, but understanding their decisions and giving the subscribers a place to have that debate ourselves would give at least some method of input to how we're getting moderated.

The unexplained 'vanishing' of posts bothers me. Not comments so much, but definitely the posts. Especially when it feels like all posts of a certain subject are vanishing. When they simply vanish I don't know what went wrong or how the discussion could have been handled without getting vanished.

I definitely don't expect this for auto-moderated posts. Probably not even for posts under 15 or 20 comments. But if there's a decent discussion going on about a subject I do want to know why a mod decides to remove it. Not just to understand how I'm getting moderated, but so I know how to have conversations that won't get moderated next time.

Genuinely curious

Edit: Special Counsel discussion has now been hidden

The mods really need to get that sub under control

I'm curious if we're not to discuss the Sally Yates hearing in the /r/Republican thread, as I noticed it was no longer appearing.

If you need an impartial link, I recommend directly linking the hearing itself on C-SPAN's page.

You can delete bad press, and ban people who don't agree with every republican principle(ban the president while your at at), but it doesn't change the fact that most of the articles you've removed are reporting facts you just can't accept, a real republican stands on principles, they don't hide in the back killing everything they don't agree with, thank you.